De novo genes and the "no new information" argument

[pitabread]

Creationist definitions of genetic "information" are often quite slippery. It's difficult to pin down exactly what a creationist means by information and the definition often varies from creationist to creationist. Regardless, the claims that evolution cannot produce new genetic information is sometimes tied to the idea that evolution cannot produce new genes or novel gene/protein functions.

Enter de novo genes: How evolution builds genes from scratch

Unlike new alleles (new variants of existing genes), de novo genes are the formation of whole new genes based on previously non-genic sequences. While there are various proposed mechanisms for how this can occur, the result is that a sequence of DNA that wasn't previously a gene becomes a gene.

Even more interesting is that de novo genes are being found in organisms down to the species level. Meaning individual species have unique genes not found in related species. For example, this paper describes the identification of various de novo genes in 15 different species of yeast: Molecular Portrait of De Novo Genes in Yeasts

This presents a dilemma for creationists.

On the one hand, creationists might claim that these aren't true examples of new "information" because they are still based on existing sequences. But since they are the formation of novel genes and/or novel gene function, this removes those criteria as requirements on which creationists can base the "no new information" argument. Creationists are admitting that evolution can produce new genes and new gene/protein function.

On the other hand, if creationists argue that evolution can't produce de novo genes and that these are from the originally created "kinds", it pushes the definition of "kind" down to the species level, possibly even the subspecies level.

Of course, there is always the third option, which is that creationists will just ignore this entirely.

Regardless, de novo genes pose a problem for creationists.

 

[The IbanezerScrooge]

Great post! Clear, concise problem for creationists. I look forward to the deafening silence on the subject from creationists on this forum.

 

[SkyWriting]

Creationist definitions of genetic "information" are often quite slippery. It's difficult to pin down exactly what a creationist means by information and the definition often varies from creationist to creationist. Regardless, the claims that evolution cannot produce new genetic inform.....

What is the real definition?

 

[SkyWriting]

Enter de novo genes: How evolution builds genes from scratch

Unlike new alleles (new variants of existing genes), de novo genes are the formation of whole new genes based on previously non-genic sequences. While there are various proposed mechanisms for how this can occur, the result is that a sequence of DNA that wasn't previously a gene becomes a gene.

If you suggest there is some guidance as to how these are assembled,
then you've lost your argument.

 

[pitabread]

Oh. I was expecting the real definition for some reason.

If creationists ever present one, we can talk about it.

 

[pitabread]

If you suggest there is some guidance as to how these are assembled, then you've lost your argument.

If creationists want to argue that evolutionary processes are being directly being manipulated by God, that's their prerogative. But science cannot say anything about that one way or another.

 

[SkyWriting]

Meaning individual species have unique genes not found in related species. For example, this paper describes the identification of various de novo genes in 15 different species of yeast: Molecular Portrait of De Novo Genes in Yeasts

Yes, an individual can develop new DNA sequences. It's done with the use of existing DNA.
I've seen this happen with newly married couples in my own family.

 

[SkyWriting]

If creationists ever present one, we can talk about it.

Which one is correct?

 

[pitabread]

Yes, an individual can develop new DNA sequences. It's done with the use of existing DNA.

It's not just new DNA sequences we're talking about here. We're talking about new genes forming from non-genic sequences.

Is this new genetic information?

 

[pitabread]

I thought you had the correct one to compare to? No?

There is no singular definition of information, including insofar as the term is applied to genetics. It's often context-specific.

Most of the time the word "information" is used in respect to genetics is in a strictly colloquial sense. It's usually just a placeholder for other terms like "nucleotide sequence".

 

[SkyWriting]

On the one hand, creationists might claim that these aren't true examples of new "information" because they are still based on existing sequences. But since they are the formation of novel genes and/or novel gene function, this removes those criteria as requirements on which creationists can base the "no new information" argument. Creationists are admitting that evolution can produce new genes and new gene/protein function.

Yes, individuals and couples can produce new sequences of DNA that did not exist.
There are thought to be reasons this happens, that are not random or useless.

 

[SkyWriting]

On the other hand, if creationists argue that evolution can't produce de novo genes and that these are from the originally created "kinds", it pushes the definition of "kind" down to the species level, possibly even the subspecies level.

"KIND" is when two organisms reproduce and the result is "KinFolk" or the same "kind" as the parents.
That is the definition of "Kind". Kin. Parents and offspring are the same "Kind".

 

[pitabread]

"KIND" is when two organisms reproduce and the result is "KinFolk" or the same "kind" as the parents.
That is the definition of "Kind". Kin. Parents and offspring are the same "Kind".

By that definition all of living things could be considered the same "kind". So it's not a particularly useful definition.

 

[SkyWriting]

There is no singular definition of information, including insofar as the ...

Well, that was the complaint.

It's difficult to pin down exactly what a creationist means by information and the definition often varies from creationist to creationist.

 

[SkyWriting]

By that definition all of living things could be considered the same "kind". So it's not a particularly useful definition.

Wow....glad you finally understand the basis for your misery.

 

[SkyWriting]

Of course, there is always the third option, which is that creationists will just ignore this entirely.

Now you know what "KIND" is so you can start your complaint over from scratch.

 

[pitabread]

Well, that was the complaint. So the complaint was like dew in the sunshine.

Because creationists are trying to use the term "information" in the context of arguments like "evolution cannot produce new genetic information", or "information can only decrease, not increase".

In the form of argument, one needs to start with a concrete definition. Otherwise, the argument invariably slips into equivocation fallacy.

 

[pitabread]

Wow....glad you finally understand the basis for your misery.

Do you have anything useful to contribute to this thread or are you just here to snipe? If it's the latter, I suggest taking a breather and returning when you something more relevant to contribute.

In the mean time, you're going back on the ignore list.

 

[SkyWriting]

If creationists want to argue that evolutionary processes are being directly being manipulated by God, that's their prerogative. But science cannot say anything about that one way or another.

Oh. I argue that all processes were designed from scratch to do exactly what you see that they do.
And given the immense complexity, Science builds the case for infinite engineering. I love it.

 

[SkyWriting]

In the form of argument, one needs to start with a concrete definition. Otherwise, the argument invariably slips into the equivocation fallacy.

And I asked you for one and you responded that there is none.